S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment of the respondent No. 1 dated 30.4.1992 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Ram Ujagir Singh and Jagannath filed suit No. 665 of 1970 for relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 7.7.1990 executed by the plaintiff No. 2 Jagannath Singh in favour of present three petitioners, viz.. Bans Raj Singh and two others. Bans Raj Singh and Baij Nath filed separate written statements. On the basis of the compromise dated 16/17.5.1985, a com- promise decree was passed on 17.5.1985 by the trial court. It is said that Bans Raj Singh did not sign the compromise at all. After the aforesaid compromise decree, Bans Raj Singh, petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 151, C.P.C. to set aside the compromise decree dated 17.5.1985.1116 trial court allowed the aforesaid application of the petitioner vide his order dated 20.4.1991 and cancelled the compromise decree. Against the aforesaid order of the trial court, respondents filed revision which was allowed by the respondent No. 1 in part and the judgment of the trial court was modified. The decree in respect to Bans Raj Singh only was ordered to be cancelled and the compromise decree in respect to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was maintained. It is this order of the respondent No. 1 dated 30.4.1992 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) which has been challenged before this Court.
(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the findings as has been given by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner No. 1 Bans Raj Singh has not signed the compromise and, therefore, in respect of his rights, the compromise decree is to be cancelled, has not been challenged by the respondents before this Court and, therefore, the compromise decree having been set aside against the petitioner No. 1, the decree, being joint and inseparable, it has to be set aside as a whole. According to the learned counsel the trial court has taken correct view in setting aside the entire decree.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel Sri Vinod Prasad has submitted that the judgment of the respondent No. 1 requires no interference for the reasons (i) this writ petition is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as they have signed the compromise, (ii) if the decree has been passed on the basis of compromise then no application under Section 151, C.P.C. is maintainable and petitioner's remedy lay in filing the appeal, (iii) the plea of decree being inseparable has not been taken before the court below.;